7.	CONTINGENCIES

There are a variety of legal proceedings pending or threatened against the Company. Some of these proceedings may result in fines, penalties, judgments or costs being assessed against the Company at some future time. The Company’s operations are subject to extensive local, state and federal regulations, including the U.S. Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) and the Superfund amendments of 1986 (Superfund) and similar laws in the other countries in which the Company does business. Over the years, the Company has received requests for information related to or has been named by the government as a potentially responsible party (PRP) at a number of waste disposal sites where cleanup costs have been or may be incurred under CERCLA and similar state statutes. In addition, damages are being claimed against the Company in general liability actions for alleged personal injury or property damage in the case of some disposal and plant sites. The Company believes that it has made adequate provisions for the costs it may incur with respect to these sites.

As of September 30, 2017, the Company estimated a range of possible environmental and legal losses of $25.0 million to $46.1 million. At September 30, 2017, and December 31, 2016, the Company’s accrued liability for such losses, which represented the Company’s best estimate within the estimated range of possible environmental and legal losses, was $25.0 million and $25.8 million, respectively. During the nine-month period ended September 30, 2017, cash outlays related to legal and environmental matters approximated $1.4 million compared to $1.0 million for the same period in 2016.

For certain sites, the Company has responded to information requests made by federal, state or local government agencies but has received no response confirming or denying the Company’s stated positions. As such, estimates of the total costs, or range of possible costs, of remediation, if any, or the Company’s share of such costs, if any, cannot be determined with respect to these sites. Consequently, the Company is unable to predict the effect thereof on the Company’s financial position, cash flows and results of operations. Based upon the Company’s present knowledge with respect to its involvement at these sites, the possibility of other viable entities’ responsibilities for cleanup, and the extended period over which any costs would be incurred, the Company believes that these matters, individually and in the aggregate, will not have a material effect on the Company’s financial position. However, in the event of one or more adverse determinations with respect to such sites in any annual or interim period, the effect on the Company’s cash flows and results of operations for those periods could be material.

Following are summaries of the material contingencies at September 30, 2017:

Maywood, New Jersey Site

The Company’s property in Maywood, New Jersey and property formerly owned by the Company adjacent to its current site and other nearby properties (Maywood site) were listed on the National Priorities List in September 1993 pursuant to the provisions of CERCLA because of certain alleged chemical contamination. Pursuant to an Administrative Order on Consent entered into between United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and the Company for property formerly owned by the Company, and the issuance of an order by USEPA to the Company for property currently owned by the Company, the Company has completed various Remedial Investigation Feasibility Studies, and on September 24, 2014, USEPA issued its Record of Decision (ROD) for chemically-contaminated soil. USEPA has not yet issued a ROD for chemically-contaminated groundwater for the Maywood site. Based on the most current information available, the Company believes its recorded liability represents its best estimate of the cost of remediation for the Maywood site. The best estimate of the cost of remediation for the Maywood site could change as the Company continues to hold discussions with USEPA, as the design of the remedial action progresses or if other PRPs are identified. The ultimate amount for which the Company is liable could differ from the Company’s current recorded liability.

In April 2015, the Company entered into an Administrative Settlement Agreement and Administrative Order on Consent with USEPA which requires payment of certain costs and performance of certain investigative and design work for chemically-contaminated soil. Based on the Company’s review and analysis of this order, no changes to the Company’s recorded liability for claims associated with soil remediation of chemical contamination were required.

In addition, under the terms of a settlement agreement reached on November 12, 2004, the U.S. Department of Justice and the Company agreed to fulfill the terms of a Cooperative Agreement reached in 1985 under which the United States will take title to and responsibility for radioactive waste removal at the Maywood site, including past and future remediation costs incurred by the United States. As such, the Company recorded no liability related to this settlement agreement.

D’Imperio Property Site

During the mid-1970’s, Jerome Lightman and the Lightman Drum Company disposed of hazardous substances at several sites in New Jersey. The Company was named as a PRP in a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey that involved the D’Imperio Property Site located in New Jersey. In 2016, the PRPs were provided with updated remediation cost estimates which were considered in the Company’s determination of its range of estimated possible losses and liability balance. The changes in range of possible losses and liability balance were immaterial. Remediation work is continuing at this site. Based on current information, the Company believes that its recorded liability represents its best estimate of the cost of remediation for the D’Imperio site. Depending on the ultimate cost of the remediation at this site, the amount for which the Company is liable could differ from the current estimates.

Wilmington Site

The Company is currently contractually obligated to contribute to the response costs associated with the Company’s formerly-owned site at 51 Eames Street, Wilmington, Massachusetts. Remediation at this site is being managed by its current owner, to whom the Company sold the property in 1980. Under the agreement, once total site remediation costs exceed certain levels, the Company is obligated to contribute up to five percent of future response costs associated with this site with no limitation on the ultimate amount of contributions. To date, the Company has paid the current owner $2.5 million for the Company’s portion of environmental response costs. The Company has recorded a liability for its portion of the estimated remediation costs for the site. The Company believes that based on current information its recorded liability represents the best estimate of its share of the remediation costs at this site. Depending on the ultimate cost of the remediation at this site, the amount for which the Company is liable could differ from the current recorded liability.

The Company and other prior owners also entered into an agreement in April 2004 waiving certain statute of limitations defenses for claims which may be filed by the Town of Wilmington, Massachusetts, in connection with this site. While the Company has denied any liability for any such claims, the Company agreed to this waiver while the parties continue to discuss the resolution of any potential claim which may be filed.

Other U.S. Sites

Through the regular environmental monitoring of its plant production sites, the Company discovered levels of chemical contamination that were above thresholds allowed by law at two of its U.S. plants. The Company voluntarily reported its results to the applicable state environmental agencies. As a result, the Company is required to perform self-remediation of the affected areas. In the fourth quarter of 2016, the Company established a liability for the estimated cost of remediating the sites. Based on current information, the Company believes that its recorded liability represents its best estimate of the cost of remediation for these sites. The ultimate cost of the remediation at this site could differ from the Company’s current recorded liability.